Police Ticket Quota

Off Topic
321

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Brett,

I’ll bite with the firehouse style policing. I am sure that “it works”. But “stop and frisks” are clear violation of our civil rights. Now I’m not saying that the police should just sit around waiting for a call. I’m sure there are pro active things to be done such as patroling, developing good relationships with neighbors, rescuing cats from trees, etc… But I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere between stop and frisks and firehouse style.

I’d love for cops to catch bad guys. But I’m not so cool with the whole, “that black teenager is wearing a hoody and his pants are sagging, he’s coming from a bad neighborhood, so he MUST be trouble - I’m gonna frisk him and violate his civil rights even though he hasn’t obviously broken the law and he doesn’t fit a description of anyone I’m looking for at the moment”.

I think ACTING on an assumption (even though in a minority of situations the assumption may be correct) is wrong. If you OBSERVE someone handing off or something, then bust their ass. But a person walking down the street minding their own business? That person has a right to go about their business unmolested.[/quote]

AC,

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you (Terry v. Ohio). “Stop and Frisk” is not a clear violation of our civil rights. You and others on this forum may not agree with it but the Supreme Court of the land has ruled on this. An officer can stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.

Now that said, I do agree that “Stop and Frisk” tactics can be abused or misused by LE. I think where we, as LEOs, get ourselves into conflict with what the Supreme Court has outlined as permissible, is when we fail to clearly articulate what our “reasonable suspicion” is when we conduct these warrantless searches. Merely stating “officer safety” is not sufficient and I cringe as a supervisor when I hear or read this in an officer’s report as to why they conducted a warrantless search.

If these searches continue to be abused or misused the Courts can just as easily take this “tool” away from us, especially if there are enough incidents where the abuse or misuse “shocks the public conscious”. Departments need to train and revisit this topic often in order to keep their personnel within the scope of what the Supreme Court intended these tactics to be used under.[/quote]

I’m not saying that the supreme court is wrong by saying an officer has the power to conduct a Terry stop, “if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous”.

My bone of contention here is this: since when is wearing a hoodie, or having sagging pants, or four black teens walking in a group, or <<>> - when is ANY of that REASONABLE SUSPICION?

I would argue that it’s a very unreasonable and often racist assumption - especially with the low statistical percentage of finding a weapon. I GREW UP in a high crime area. Or to describe it more accurately, an economically depressed area with a high percentage of folks on public assistance. Not everyone who lived there broke the law - most of them were just poor, yet according the logic of most LEO’s the fact that they are IN that area constitutes reasonable suspicion. Back then (in Baltimore City in the 70’s and 80’s), it was more than just a stop and frisk, it was more of a “prevention ass-kicking”.

Now, let’s peel back the onion another layer and examine what could POSSIBLY be the motivation of a person living in a high crime area for carrying a weapon. Could it possibly be that he’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6? Perhaps it for self defence because he lives in a high crime area and doesn’t the STATE’s interference and searching for a gun CLEARLY violate his SECOND AMMENDMEMT rights? The second ammendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (except in high crime areas)”. It doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (unless you are black, wearing a hoodie, and looking suspicious)”.

Now I know you’re just going to come back and say, well the SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you. And you are correct. Special interest groups and liberal pussies have taken our country in a VERY sad direction. But FOR NOW, it’s still legal to speak my mind, so I’m exercising my right to do so.

[/quote]

Really have no issue with what you have written here and agree with most of it.

I am not here to make excuses for piss poor police work and tactics. Not going to attempt to justify it nor would I want to. My point in my post was to point out that the US Supreme Court issued an opinion on Stop and Frisk warrantless searches and have permitted us to legally conduct them. This was in rebuttal to your statement that stop and frisks are a clear violation of our constitutional rights.

I agree with you that many LEO’s are missing the point of what “reasonable suspicion” actually is. They have diluted “reasonable suspicion” down to something less than what the Supreme Court intended the burden of proof to be when defining reasonable suspicion.

322

AC,

In reference to your question regarding when to tell the bosses, or the powers that be to fuck off:

I gave this same question a lot of thought after Sandy Hook, since there was a LOT of discussion about Congress taking some pretty extreme measures. Even before the uproar had subsided, I had already made the decision that I was not taking any guns. I didn’t care if they repealed the 2nd Amendment at that point…when the only people who can legally own guns are representatives of the government, then that government is wrong. So, as part of my answer, I would draw the line on seizing guns.

As for the rest…let’s say a natural disaster / Katrina like incident. People are looting. My honest answer…if they are stealing food or medicine (or whatever related supplies a normal person would need in that situation), then they get a free pass. Stealing TV’s, brand name sneakers, sports jerseys and what have you…they get ONE chance to put it down and leave. Ignore the order, and that discussion is over with. I don’t have moral convictions about shooting people for victimizing others during a disaster.

Would I shoot someone for being out after curfew following a natural disaster? No. They aren’t victimizing anyone by just walking around. I would monitor them, however.

The world goes kaphlooey and there is a run on banks? I’m not helping a bank. They’re on their own. I might stand by to make sure employees didn’t get hurt, but if people started damaging the bank as a vent of their rage? Have at it. I couldn’t blame them.

Zombie apocalypse? Worldwide pandemic? A complete societal breakdown is going to have no need for police officers. It becomes a matter of ensuring my family’s survival, just like yours, I’m sure.

Hope that answered your question.

324

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I gave this same question a lot of thought after Sandy Hook, since there was a LOT of discussion about Congress taking some pretty extreme measures. Even before the uproar had subsided, I had already made the decision that I was not taking any guns. I didn’t care if they repealed the 2nd Amendment at that point…when the only people who can legally own guns are representatives of the government, then that government is wrong. So, as part of my answer, I would draw the line on seizing guns.
[/quote]

Are you sure that’s where you draw the line? If you find someone who you are 99% sure is a convicted felon in possession of a gun, you won’t check(I say “check” because if you do, then the decision is out of your hands and you have to act, and I understand taking the gun when your job is on the line…but there are ways around things, such as not checking) to confirm he is a felon? You will let him go?

Or do you just mean that you draw the line at seizing guns from people who haven’t had that right taken from them?

326

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
‘In your estimation’. Exactly. Be careful when citing statistics this way w/o source.

What is your law enforcement experience?
[/quote]

Do you have statistics for how often dogs and their handlers are correct? Don’t you think that would be an important statistic to have when we are declaring something to be PROBABLE CAUSE TO PERFORM A WARRANTLESS SEARCH? Should the burden of proof not rest on the government? I would say officers better be finding dope at least 51% of the time a dog alerts if that dog’s nose is to be considered probable cause.[/quote]

lol.

You do know that K9 officers track their ‘statistics’ of their dogs. I know dogs on the interdiction team that have about 70% rate. They use them selectively. That’s why I asked, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

You do know that these indication rates are disclosed in court, too?

You knew that right?

327

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And remember, these methods are used in high crimes area mostly. Which goes back to the discussion of how do you address an area with a high concentration of shootings, robberies, burglaries, drug activity, gang violence Etc.

How so? Please don’t say citizen tips though…

This is the trade off. And that’s my point.
[/quote]

Video surveillance? Passive metal and explosives detection? Other non-invasive technologies that can be used to signal further action/investigation?

These are a few actual alternatives.

Now, certainly, most departments don’t have access to the technology or the funds to purchase that equipment… but the technology is out there.[/quote]

I guess let’s just use drones then.

328

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
lol.

You do know that K9 officers track their ‘statistics’ of their dogs. I know dogs on the interdiction team that have about 70% rate. They use them selectively. That’s why I asked, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

You do know that these indication rates are disclosed in court, too?

You knew that right?

[/quote]

The only thing I’ve ever heard of being disclosed in court is a dog’s certification.

I just see no reason a search warrant can’t be obtained in this day and age. I would think most patrol cars are hooked to the internet, a shell affidavit could be kept on the in-car computer, a judge or magistrate could receive the affidavit via e-mail, issue a search warrant if he sees fit, and the officer could execute the warrant…all in not much more time than it takes for a dog to come from across the county to sniff around and scratch up a person’s car…and more importantly, all done in a fashion which wouldn’t dilute the fourth amendment.

329

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Brett,

I’ll bite with the firehouse style policing. I am sure that “it works”. But “stop and frisks” are clear violation of our civil rights. Now I’m not saying that the police should just sit around waiting for a call. I’m sure there are pro active things to be done such as patroling, developing good relationships with neighbors, rescuing cats from trees, etc… But I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere between stop and frisks and firehouse style.

I’d love for cops to catch bad guys. But I’m not so cool with the whole, “that black teenager is wearing a hoody and his pants are sagging, he’s coming from a bad neighborhood, so he MUST be trouble - I’m gonna frisk him and violate his civil rights even though he hasn’t obviously broken the law and he doesn’t fit a description of anyone I’m looking for at the moment”.

I think ACTING on an assumption (even though in a minority of situations the assumption may be correct) is wrong. If you OBSERVE someone handing off or something, then bust their ass. But a person walking down the street minding their own business? That person has a right to go about their business unmolested.[/quote]

AC,

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you (Terry v. Ohio). “Stop and Frisk” is not a clear violation of our civil rights. You and others on this forum may not agree with it but the Supreme Court of the land has ruled on this. An officer can stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.

Now that said, I do agree that “Stop and Frisk” tactics can be abused or misused by LE. I think where we, as LEOs, get ourselves into conflict with what the Supreme Court has outlined as permissible, is when we fail to clearly articulate what our “reasonable suspicion” is when we conduct these warrantless searches. Merely stating “officer safety” is not sufficient and I cringe as a supervisor when I hear or read this in an officer’s report as to why they conducted a warrantless search.

If these searches continue to be abused or misused the Courts can just as easily take this “tool” away from us, especially if there are enough incidents where the abuse or misuse “shocks the public conscious”. Departments need to train and revisit this topic often in order to keep their personnel within the scope of what the Supreme Court intended these tactics to be used under.[/quote]

I’m not saying that the supreme court is wrong by saying an officer has the power to conduct a Terry stop, “if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous”.

My bone of contention here is this: since when is wearing a hoodie, or having sagging pants, or four black teens walking in a group, or <<>> - when is ANY of that REASONABLE SUSPICION?

I would argue that it’s a very unreasonable and often racist assumption - especially with the low statistical percentage of finding a weapon. I GREW UP in a high crime area. Or to describe it more accurately, an economically depressed area with a high percentage of folks on public assistance. Not everyone who lived there broke the law - most of them were just poor, yet according the logic of most LEO’s the fact that they are IN that area constitutes reasonable suspicion. Back then (in Baltimore City in the 70’s and 80’s), it was more than just a stop and frisk, it was more of a “prevention ass-kicking”.

Now, let’s peel back the onion another layer and examine what could POSSIBLY be the motivation of a person living in a high crime area for carrying a weapon. Could it possibly be that he’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6? Perhaps it for self defence because he lives in a high crime area and doesn’t the STATE’s interference and searching for a gun CLEARLY violate his SECOND AMMENDMEMT rights? The second ammendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (except in high crime areas)”. It doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (unless you are black, wearing a hoodie, and looking suspicious)”.

Now I know you’re just going to come back and say, well the SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you. And you are correct. Special interest groups and liberal pussies have taken our country in a VERY sad direction. But FOR NOW, it’s still legal to speak my mind, so I’m exercising my right to do so.

Question to LEO’s:

At WHAT point would you tell your commanding officer to fuck off? In a disaster situation like Katrina where they are telling you to arrest/shoot people for being out after dark? If the dollar collapses and there is a run on the banks and people want to get THEIR money and you are told to keep them away? Where would you draw the line at exercising TOO much power? Or WOULD you? Would you just follow orders and violate the Constitution because someone told you to do it?[/quote]

In that situation you are describing in Katrina, if anyone ever instructed me to do that, I would tell them to F-off. People tend to forget we are ordinary citizens just like you. We just have a difficult job. We are not the “oppressors”. I’m sorry a lot of you guys had such bad experiences, but I can only control my own actions.

330

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
lol.

You do know that K9 officers track their ‘statistics’ of their dogs. I know dogs on the interdiction team that have about 70% rate. They use them selectively. That’s why I asked, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

You do know that these indication rates are disclosed in court, too?

You knew that right?

[/quote]

The only thing I’ve ever heard of being disclosed in court is a dog’s certification.

I just see no reason a search warrant can’t be obtained in this day and age. I would think most patrol cars are hooked to the internet, a shell affidavit could be kept on the in-car computer, a judge or magistrate could receive the affidavit via e-mail, issue a search warrant if he sees fit, and the officer could execute the warrant…all in not much more time than it takes for a dog to come from across the county to sniff around and scratch up a person’s car…and more importantly, all done in a fashion which wouldn’t dilute the fourth amendment.[/quote]

Oh really…??

I guess that shows you are not a criminal defense attorney.

331

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
lol.

You do know that K9 officers track their ‘statistics’ of their dogs. I know dogs on the interdiction team that have about 70% rate. They use them selectively. That’s why I asked, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

You do know that these indication rates are disclosed in court, too?

You knew that right?

[/quote]

The only thing I’ve ever heard of being disclosed in court is a dog’s certification.

I just see no reason a search warrant can’t be obtained in this day and age. I would think most patrol cars are hooked to the internet, a shell affidavit could be kept on the in-car computer, a judge or magistrate could receive the affidavit via e-mail, issue a search warrant if he sees fit, and the officer could execute the warrant…all in not much more time than it takes for a dog to come from across the county to sniff around and scratch up a person’s car…and more importantly, all done in a fashion which wouldn’t dilute the fourth amendment.[/quote]

lol.

Man… you think a motorist should be held while we get a search warrant to search their vehicle?

Wow.

Question. How long do you think I would detain the motorist under your scenario?

And if I can someone stopped at 2am, do you think Judge Davis would respond to my email??

332

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I understand your issue with the 20% statistic. Not sure how NYPD came up with this and how they compiled their data, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll go with it.

If I am right and find a weapon only 20% of the time when I search a suspect that I have an articulable reasonable suspicion to suspect that he/she is possibly armed and dangerous then so be it. I do not know of a realistic way that would bring these percentages up to an “acceptable” range. Any suggestions? [/quote]

If we lived in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran,…etc. I would agree with you. In the United States individual rights trump group rights in all but the rarest situations. I realize the countries I used are an extreme example, but my point remains. I concede that an officers job is very challenging; however as far as work place fatalities are concerned LEOs barely break the top ten, if you subtract deaths from Auto-accidents where the officer was responsible for the crash it drops to the mid-teens. Like I mentioned; I extend the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the officer, but less than 20% is casting the broad net, not reasonable suspicion.
[/quote]

What strategies should officers use in these urban, high crime areas?

Let’s talk Chicago.

Here is a city which does not employ Stop and Frisk. It’s a town run by Leftists. You have a state with the strictest gun laws on the books, so that’s in place.

How do you stop the shootings and murders in South Chicago? I see a lot of people being critical, but give me some alternatives. If you were the Mayor and Police Chief, how would you address this?? We will exclude all pro-active ‘stops’. That’s both Terry Stops and Vehicle Stops (unless it’s a ticketed traffic violation).

333

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
lol.

Man… you think a motorist should be held while we get a search warrant to search their vehicle?

Wow.

Question. How long do you think I would detain the motorist under your scenario?

And if I can someone stopped at 2am, do you think Judge Davis would respond to my email??[/quote]

There are 24/7 magistrates around here…not sure how it is anywhere else.

Yes, I think a search warrant should be required to search a vehicle whose operator does not consent to a search.

I’m not a fan of government making things more palatable in order to expand its power(“We’ll consider this dog probable cause because that will save you the inconvenience of being detained while we obtain a search warrant.”).

A motorist would be detained long enough to investigate a specific crime in my scenario.

334

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
lol.

Man… you think a motorist should be held while we get a search warrant to search their vehicle?

Wow.

Question. How long do you think I would detain the motorist under your scenario?

And if I can someone stopped at 2am, do you think Judge Davis would respond to my email??[/quote]

There are 24/7 magistrates around here…not sure how it is anywhere else.

Yes, I think a search warrant should be required to search a vehicle whose operator does not consent to a search.

I’m not a fan of government making things more palatable in order to expand its power(“We’ll consider this dog probable cause because that will save you the inconvenience of being detained while we obtain a search warrant.”).

A motorist would be detained long enough to investigate a specific crime in my scenario.[/quote]

Judges are available at 2am to sign warrants in your city/town? They are sleeping in my city… Good luck at getting one signed.

And no, there is no dept that I’m aware of that does then electronically like you suggest. Please name them if you say otherwise.

So with a search warrant, you would detain the motorist, go downtown and type it or to a precinct/station, and THEN find a judge to sign it. You are talking about a 2 hour detention (even longer if it’s done while they are all in court, like 10am on a Monday). I know, because I have done them. So you are “detaining” someone for 2 hours. The Supreme Court would not deem that reasonable. That’s why we don’t do it.

Nick, your beef needs to be more with the courts than the police. Become an activist and become engaged in the political process if you want change. Until the courts overturn these decision thru case law and decisions… we operate under the guidelines established by the courts.

If you voted for Obama who elected those justices (and brought along Eric Holder), you are off t a pretty good start.

335

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I understand your issue with the 20% statistic. Not sure how NYPD came up with this and how they compiled their data, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll go with it.

If I am right and find a weapon only 20% of the time when I search a suspect that I have an articulable reasonable suspicion to suspect that he/she is possibly armed and dangerous then so be it. I do not know of a realistic way that would bring these percentages up to an “acceptable” range. Any suggestions? [/quote]

If we lived in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran,…etc. I would agree with you. In the United States individual rights trump group rights in all but the rarest situations. I realize the countries I used are an extreme example, but my point remains. I concede that an officers job is very challenging; however as far as work place fatalities are concerned LEOs barely break the top ten, if you subtract deaths from Auto-accidents where the officer was responsible for the crash it drops to the mid-teens. Like I mentioned; I extend the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the officer, but less than 20% is casting the broad net, not reasonable suspicion.
[/quote]

What strategies should officers use in these urban, high crime areas?

Let’s talk Chicago.

Here is a city which does not employ Stop and Frisk. It’s a town run by Leftists. You have a state with the strictest gun laws on the books, so that’s in place.

How do you stop the shootings and murders in South Chicago? I see a lot of people being critical, but give me some alternatives. If you were the Mayor and Police Chief, how would you address this?? We will exclude all pro-active ‘stops’. That’s both Terry Stops and Vehicle Stops (unless it’s a ticketed traffic violation).[/quote]

What never seems to get mentioned about the gun deaths in Chicago is that it is all fueled by drug laws. Chicago has always been the distribution hub of the midwest for nearly everything, from beef to grain to drugs.

There is a major mexican cartel that has claimed Chicago, creating a turf war.

I-94 in southern Michigan is the main route between Detroit and Chicago. You wouldn’t believe the number of vehicles I see pulled over on I-94 with their contents piled up on the shoulder and the occupants spread eagle against the hood of the troopers car.

336

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I understand your issue with the 20% statistic. Not sure how NYPD came up with this and how they compiled their data, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll go with it.

If I am right and find a weapon only 20% of the time when I search a suspect that I have an articulable reasonable suspicion to suspect that he/she is possibly armed and dangerous then so be it. I do not know of a realistic way that would bring these percentages up to an “acceptable” range. Any suggestions? [/quote]

If we lived in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran,…etc. I would agree with you. In the United States individual rights trump group rights in all but the rarest situations. I realize the countries I used are an extreme example, but my point remains. I concede that an officers job is very challenging; however as far as work place fatalities are concerned LEOs barely break the top ten, if you subtract deaths from Auto-accidents where the officer was responsible for the crash it drops to the mid-teens. Like I mentioned; I extend the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the officer, but less than 20% is casting the broad net, not reasonable suspicion.
[/quote]

What strategies should officers use in these urban, high crime areas?

Let’s talk Chicago.

Here is a city which does not employ Stop and Frisk. It’s a town run by Leftists. You have a state with the strictest gun laws on the books, so that’s in place.

How do you stop the shootings and murders in South Chicago? I see a lot of people being critical, but give me some alternatives. If you were the Mayor and Police Chief, how would you address this?? We will exclude all pro-active ‘stops’. That’s both Terry Stops and Vehicle Stops (unless it’s a ticketed traffic violation).[/quote]

I posted this several pages back…
If arrest/citations from the stops were limited to illegal weapons possession only, then I would consider changing my position. I feel the same way about DUI checkpoints; impaired divers only, no registration, insurance, inspection, etc. tickets or questioning the passengers; then I might feel differently.

337

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I agree with you that many LEO’s are missing the point of what “reasonable suspicion” actually is. They have diluted “reasonable suspicion” down to something less than what the Supreme Court intended the burden of proof to be when defining reasonable suspicion. [/quote]

Yes…and my concern is about the blowback. As others have mentioned the pendulum is always in motion. I don’t want top-shelf officers being ‘handicapped’ someday in the future because we have allowed anything to qualify as the burden of proof today.

338

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I agree with you that many LEO’s are missing the point of what “reasonable suspicion” actually is. They have diluted “reasonable suspicion” down to something less than what the Supreme Court intended the burden of proof to be when defining reasonable suspicion. [/quote]

Yes…and my concern is about the blowback. As others have mentioned the pendulum is always in motion. I don’t want top-shelf officers being ‘handicapped’ someday in the future because we have allowed anything to qualify as the burden of proof today.
[/quote]

Agree 100%.

339

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I understand your issue with the 20% statistic. Not sure how NYPD came up with this and how they compiled their data, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll go with it.

If I am right and find a weapon only 20% of the time when I search a suspect that I have an articulable reasonable suspicion to suspect that he/she is possibly armed and dangerous then so be it. I do not know of a realistic way that would bring these percentages up to an “acceptable” range. Any suggestions? [/quote]

If we lived in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran,…etc. I would agree with you. In the United States individual rights trump group rights in all but the rarest situations. I realize the countries I used are an extreme example, but my point remains. I concede that an officers job is very challenging; however as far as work place fatalities are concerned LEOs barely break the top ten, if you subtract deaths from Auto-accidents where the officer was responsible for the crash it drops to the mid-teens. Like I mentioned; I extend the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the officer, but less than 20% is casting the broad net, not reasonable suspicion.
[/quote]

What strategies should officers use in these urban, high crime areas?

Let’s talk Chicago.

Here is a city which does not employ Stop and Frisk. It’s a town run by Leftists. You have a state with the strictest gun laws on the books, so that’s in place.

How do you stop the shootings and murders in South Chicago? I see a lot of people being critical, but give me some alternatives. If you were the Mayor and Police Chief, how would you address this?? We will exclude all pro-active ‘stops’. That’s both Terry Stops and Vehicle Stops (unless it’s a ticketed traffic violation).[/quote]

What never seems to get mentioned about the gun deaths in Chicago is that it is all fueled by drug laws. Chicago has always been the distribution hub of the midwest for nearly everything, from beef to grain to drugs.

There is a major mexican cartel that has claimed Chicago, creating a turf war.

I-94 in southern Michigan is the main route between Detroit and Chicago. You wouldn’t believe the number of vehicles I see pulled over on I-94 with their contents piled up on the shoulder and the occupants spread eagle against the hood of the troopers car.[/quote]

This is exactly right. The crime on the South Side of Chicago seems to be driven by drugs.

A side note, I live on the Northwest side of Chicago, and it seems that people in other states take greater offense to the crime that occurs here. It seems kind of run of the mill for Chicago residents at this point. Most people know to avoid a couple to a few neighborhoods, and the gang crime has no effect on us as long as we do.

340

I wonder why those critical of Stop and Frisk won’t address the answer of how you deal with the violence in South Chicago?

Police there are using the tactics you endorse.

And it’s worse than Afganistan.